Washington Post: Steering the Narrative or Reporting the Truth?

On October 28th, the New Mexico Election Transparency Network Board and I met with Washington Post reporter Peter Jamison, who was assigned to track New Mexico’s election administration. What unfolded in our conversation revealed more than concerns over election processes; it highlighted the role of narrative-shaping by the media.

During the interview, we presented documents about New Mexico’s election system (SERVIS) not being certified or the other systems not being certified to standard. I also shared information from e-mails obtained that some county clerks were directed by the Secretary of State’s office to adjust election results after certification and that an unqualified statewide candidate was placed on the ballot in 2022. Jamison’s response was telling: “Did it change the outcome?” My reply was straightforward: Does it matter? Is breaking the law not illegal?

The article was published yesterday, Sunday November 3rd and it is obvious that Mr. Jamison did not refer to any of the documentation he was presented. He did not state that concerns expressed by John Veltri and others were based on documentation and research. Instead we were referred to as “activists” who had made allegations of widespread voter fraud.

Mr. Jamison then asked how we felt about being called “election deniers.” My response was clear: I have never denied there was an election. What I seek are answers to questions about inconsistencies in the process, potential statute violations, and illogical patterns.

Jamison also quoted Doña Ana County Clerk Dr. Amanda Lopez Askin, who believes it’s “counterproductive” to engage with activists on these matters, claiming it “feeds conspiracy theories” and provides “ammunition” to those who doubt the system. He added that Commissioner Katherine Bruch similarly argues it’s unproductive to engage with people who express the kind of concerns we’re raising.

This led to a discussion on the essential role of activism in our Republic. It was activists who led the Boston Tea Party, protesting taxation without representation. It was Republican activists who propelled the movement toward emancipation. It was activists who won women the right to vote and who championed civil rights and opposed the Vietnam War. Transparency and scrutiny aren’t dangerous to our Republic—they’re essential. Questioning the system is not only healthy but necessary. Labeling these concerns as myths, lore, or “dangerous activism” does not address the real issue—it sidesteps it.

As we discussed the Washington Post’s recent announcement to abstain from endorsing a presidential candidate, Mr. Veltri brought up that Jeff Bezos, the paper’s owner, explained that such endorsements could create a “perception of bias” and compromise the newspaper’s independence. When asked about the decision, Jamison distanced himself, saying, “That doesn’t have anything to do with me. I work for the newsroom.” He added, “Jeff Bezos has nothing to do with the work that I do.” This prompted me to wonder: Was he signaling disapproval of the decision to maintain an independent voice? Or was he perhaps supportive of crafting narratives over reporting straightforward facts?

With distrust in the mainstream media at an all-time high, one might hope the Post would seize this opportunity to report facts transparently. However, the media’s reluctance to consider valid election questions suggests it may be more invested in steering the story than in revealing the truth. When the press echoes only one side, distrust grows—especially when there is evidence suggesting the system is vulnerable.

Sandoval County has experienced its share of political shifts, and with these changes comes a need to examine—not dismiss—election concerns. But for the people here, it’s clear: we will continue to champion fair, transparent elections.

Our Republic deserves more than headlines crafted to steer opinion; it deserves real answers. If the Washington Post and other media outlets cannot meet that standard, then perhaps it’s time for the American people to start asking whether they are part of the solution—or just another part of the problem.